I see, so a coercive currency is just fiat currency (or just currency) with an appended modifier. This modifier itself is then qualified with 'indirect' because the regulations enabling the use of these currencies is backed by government force which, although rarely utilised in the context of the commercial transaction, is ever-present. In relation to this indirect coercion these economists are (directly? or indirectly?) forcing people to spend money through monetary policy.

Is that about right in standard parlance?

Ok, my bad. The currency itself can hardly be called "coercive". Coercion is done by people to people. When I was talking about economic policies, I meant this recipe:

1. Establish a government-issued currency that it can print when it wants.

2. Make people use this currency by creating barriers to other currencies and forcing people to accept it as payment for debts.

3. Print money according to some made up theory on what's better for society and give this money to whoever needs it it more (according to a theory at hand).